Hon Chairperson, I'm not going to divert from what I wanted to say by responding to people who have nothing else to do in this Parliament except to listen to what the ANC says, and oppose it. These are people who have no constituencies, who are paid taxpayers' money, doing nothing for the community except to oppose the ANC. [Interjections.]
The only person I can respond to is hon Vos. At least there is something important that you've said; at least you agree with us that there are serious problems in the SABC. As for the rest, it is as if they have not spoken at all.
Since the leakage of the memorandum on 13 April 2008, the circus of the new SABC board was, again, on the front pages of the printed media and on the screens of the electronic media. The leakage opened a debate in the media that had partially subsided, a discussion on the representativity of the broad cross-section of our population on the SABC board.
Our alliance partners were amongst those organisations and individuals who criticised the composition of the SABC board. To our alliance partners, the absence of labour representatives was among their cause of dissatisfaction.
Despite all that was on air, as members of the ANC in that committee, we were aware of the difficulties that were faced both by the board and management. However, we gave them all the benefit of the doubt that they would overcome those obstacles and unite in performing their different mandates for a common objective. To our astonishment, only three members of the board appeared before the committee on 29 April 2008, and there were no valid reasons as to why the rest could not attend. This new board has only appeared before us once; it's a new board so I don't know what is usual about it. It would have been impossible to continue in the absence of other members of the board, especially because it was their second appearance before the committee. We also needed to be satisfied that the strategic plan was a product of a collective, despite rumours in the media that, in Auckland Park, the operating law was that of the jungle and that only the fittest survive. We sent them packing and demanded that the entire board and management be present when the meeting resumed the following day.
To our surprise, both the board and management were talking different languages on the issue of the memorandum. Our suspicion that the strategic plan might not have been done collectively was confirmed. It became clear that the new board rubberstamped what was essentially prepared by the previous board.
On the issue of the leaked memorandum, the chairperson appealed to the committee not to discuss it on the basis that it was being revised. The deputy chairperson supported the chairperson by saying that they realised that there were inaccuracies in the memorandum and might be contested. The board told us that the document would be brought to us when it had been finalised. However, we insisted that it had to be discussed.
It goes without saying that both the chairperson and the deputy of the SABC board misled Parliament because, amongst their reasons to suspend the group chief executive officer, GCEO, were things contained in the memorandum that were being revised, as it was not accurate according to them. Again, the chairperson's actions contradicted what she told the parliamentary committee. The management also complained bitterly about the treatment at the hands of the board, and the inability of the board to take them into confidence.
The management requested a meeting to workshop issues on corporate governance, and their expectations were duly turned down by the board. Their second request to meet with the board after the leakage of the memorandum was also rejected. Instead, the members of the management were individually ambushed and answers demanded to questions posed by the board.
We are not suggesting that the management is perfect and has no contribution to the mess in Auckland Park, nor are we projecting that the GCEO is the Angel Gabriel. However, the board has an authority over the SABC executives. The board has a duty to intervene strategically where it is necessary. It is the duty of the board to promote good corporate governance, and a healthy working relationship between management and members. The least we are expecting from the board is to be accused of being untrustworthy and of being champions of confusion and anarchy, instead of providing leadership.
We suspected that there might be victimisation of management by the board after the meeting of 30 April 2008, and we encouraged all those who needed to get things off their chests to do so without fear. We also appealed to the board not to act against management on the basis of the discussions of 30 April, as that would be tantamount to victimisation of the members of the executive and abuse of power. Once more, our suspicions were proven correct.
We carefully observed what was going on in front of us. It was clear from the contradictions between the board and management that they were antagonistic. It was also clear that the board failed in performing its constitutional mandate. It was, without doubt, because trust had broken between the board and management. On that basis, we had to pass a vote of no confidence in the board. [Interjections.] If we had legislative powers to fire or to dissolve the board, today they would only exist in the history books.
As if all this drama was not enough, a few days later, we learnt that the Head of News and Current Affairs had been suspended for insubordination and leaking of confidential documents. Again, a few days later, the board suspended the GCEO. The rest is history.
Who, in this august House, except the DA, is not convinced that there is no authority or control in the SABC? Who, in this House, is prepared to put his neck on the block and convince this House that this board is capable of exercising its mandated powers, except the DA? [Interjections.]
Section 15 of the Broadcasting Act of 1999 deals with the removal of the board. As it is now, it is very unclear, ambiguous, and is subject to many interpretations. The ANC will have no option, but to insist on the amendment of the law so that, in future, when such scenarios occur, we know exactly who has to do what, when and how. [Interjections.] The judgment against the SABC board chairperson and the board itself was absolutely scathing and cutting to say the least.
The Supreme Court judge said that "the conduct of Ms Mkhonza falls short of what is expected of an independent director who should act without fear and favour, and with integrity and honesty." These are harsh words, indeed. For a public official of a public broadcaster's integrity and honesty to be questioned by a Supreme Court judge is a serious indictment of the person and of the entire board.
The ANC cannot ignore the fact that the integrity and honesty of this chairperson and her board has been questioned by a Supreme Court. This is exactly what the committee had seen long before the hon judge came to the same conclusion. The ANC, therefore, wholeheartedly concurs with the hon judge, and hereby calls upon the chairperson, Ms Mkhonza, and her board to do the honourable thing and resign, so that the committee can speedily put in place a mechanism for the selection and the appointment of the new board, which will start on a clean slate and which will do its job in a manner that is consistent with the spirit, letter, and provisions of our Constitution and law. I thank you. [Interjections.] [Applause.]
Debate concluded.